Faster than Light

[deleted]

Eckard,

You wrote: "So I consider Einstein's second postulate wrong if constancy is explicitly postulated re observer, while still formally correct as long as the usual reference to empty space is not excluded."

Any deduction (e.g. of time dilation) from the second postulate clearly shows that, in special relativity, constancy "re observer" is meant. This is so obvious that neither relativists nor antirelativists find it suitable to give it any discussion.

(You replied to a mistaken message of mine so I am placing my answer here, under the corrected version.)

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Pentcho/Eckard

"constancy "re observer" is meant. This is so obvious that neither relativists nor antirelativists find it suitable to give it any discussion"

And that is the problem, because this "obvious" presumption is incorrect. The light Einstein is using is not observational light. He is using light as a timing mechanism. Just read section 1, part 1, light is being used to measure time and distance. It is not so that anybody can see. A timing reference is by definition, constant. Observational light in practical terms approximates to constant. Because he uses the term 'frame of reference',and is talking of light, people have presumed he is referring to observation. But there is no such light to enable sight. We have lightening, beams of light, etc, but no subsequent light for observers to be observers. They are just reference entities.

Paul

[deleted]

Divine Albert fools relativity believers:

Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

In fact, Section XII in Divine Albert's book does not contain any results explaining why the clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run FASTER than the clock at the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts RECIPROCAL time dilation for inertial observers - either observer sees the other observer's clock running SLOW. The Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which (the one at the edge of the disc) is not inertial.

Needless to say, relativity believers would never go to Section XII and see if the results there justify Divine Albert's claim that the clock at the center runs faster. They just sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and, when the ecstasy reaches its culmination, go into convulsions. If Divine Albert had said that it is the clock at the edge that runs faster, relativity believers would be just as ecstatic.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

The Rotating Disc Conundrum

We have multiple clocks regularly scattered and fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc and a single non-rotating clock at rest situated outside the disc but very close to the periphery. This clock constantly compares its reading with the readings of rotating clocks passing by. Initially the disc is immobile and all clocks are synchronous but then the disc starts rotating and eventually a constant linear speed of the periphery is reached.

Does the difference:

(clock-at-rest reading) - (rotating-clock reading)

increase, decrease or remain constant (zero) as the number of comparisons increases? Einsteinians answer immediately:

"The difference increases because Divine Albert said so, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Yet by increasing the perimeter of the disc while keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed on the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational field" they experience is reduced to zero). So the clock at rest is repeatedly checked against two clocks fixed on the periphery - according to special relativity, the clock at rest is found to run more slowly than the clocks on the periphery:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

This means that the difference:

(clock-at-rest reading) - (rotating-clock reading)

decreases. Since special relativity also predicts that the difference increases (Divine Albert is right about that), we just have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The consequent is absurd, therefore the antecedent (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Paradox in the twin paradox:

Special relativity predicts that, when two inertial observers pass one another with relative speed v, either of them sees the other's clock running SLOW by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). This prediction is false of course but it VALIDLY follows from the postulates - its falsehood is due to the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate.

In his 1920 book Divine Albert claims that, if one of the observers experiences a centrifugal force (being fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc), then he sees the other observer's clock running FAST by a factor of gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), no matter the magnitude of the force (it could be virtually zero):

Albert Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920. XXIII. Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference

Divine Albert's 1920 claim is just a blatant lie - it does not follow from the postulates of special relativity. However, intensely repeated for a century, the blatant lie is now an absolute truth. By fighting it, antirelativists find themselves in the unfortunate position of defending the genuine special relativity against additional absurdities introduced by Divine Albert.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Pentcho

Sorry to disappoint you, but there are no paradoxes in Einstein. He was wrong, but so are his critics. Because having failed to understand what he actually said, they have failed to understand why he was actually wrong. These paradoxes, etc, are a function of the misunderstanding of the critics, not of Einstein's theory.

There is SR, which as he defined appears fair enough, but since it is just a theoretical circumstance, it is irrelevant anyway. His theory was GR, which I would not presume to comment on.

His fault is in his misconceptualisation of physical existence, and hence the essence of the theory, ie that the time differential is in physical existence whereas it is actually in the receipt of a photon based representation of physical existence, and that light is the feature of physical existence which he attributes it as being.

Neither would I assert he was lying or doing anything consciously untoward. Perhaps some researcher could find evidence that he subsequently became aware of problems, and really should have spoken out. But really those at the time and since, should take responsibility, because they did not identify the mistakes.

Paul

[deleted]

Pentcho,

You: "This is so obvious that neither relativists nor antirelativists find it suitable to give it any discussion." Well, antirelativists like you tend to also ignore the possibility that Michelson's expectation was wrong from the very beginning and therefore Michelson's conclusion "The hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect" was wrong too. Michelson himself disliked Einstein's relativity which he considered a monster. He preferred agnosticism.

The insight that Michelson's expectation was wrong is therefore the key to an overdue reconsideration of firmly accepted tenets. You will not like this insight and ignore it. Relativists are ignoring it too. They tolerate all of your many arguments against relativity because they distract from the basic mistake which SR and emission theories have in common.

Everybody will excuse renowned physicists like George Ellis and Steven Hawking who seem too busy as to deal with revelations by such nobodies like Paul Marmet, Norbert Feist, and me. However, I see you in a different position. Please take issue if can or stop fruitlessly attacking Einstein's relativity.

Eckard

pjackson

Pentcho,

I can only agree with Eckard. Your attacks are fruitless, indeed counter productive. If you were a '5th columnist' from your Einsteinia planted here to discredit any dissent about relativity theory you could not possibly be doing a more effective job.

Eckard,

I responded to your questions on my essay blog a while ago. I think my work has also led to unearthing the problem with mathematics, which is the same as with logic, where all systems are ultimately beset by paradox (equivalent to Godel's theorem).

Consider predicate calculus, analogous to using nouns in language. I propose it is only modelling metaphysical concepts not reality, because a fundamental premise of maths and logic is ultimately false.

Can you advise me of your thoughts on this; If a = a means 'snowflake = snowflake', would we not have to have two identical snowflakes for it to be true, and would it not ultimately be false for all but a 'trivial' probability.

If we however consider Proper Nouns, we can say 'Plato = Plato'. However, a proper noun is a unique entity, so 'a = a' is in that case only metaphysical.

So can we really say 'tree = tree', or that anything 'countable' is precisely identical to anything else? The DFM suggests not.

Perhaps stem cells, or maybe not, or sub atomic particles but incomputable, so only probability theory can be applied. We then derive that uncertainty is not synonymous with pre-ordained, and may remain in a causal universe.

Is the weather not both causal and uncertain?

Would that not mean Bell was wrong?

Do give me your thoughts. (I'll also post this on my blog)

Peter

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

Since my time is perhaps limited, I intend to bring at least my arguments on Michelson's wrong expectation in a easily understandable and compelling form. You pointed me to and I also found myself papers devoted to n larger than 1. Admittedly, I did only manage so far to safely and sufficiently elucidate the case of waves in empty space. Maybe, I did often not understand what you alluded to. Moreover I often have to look into my dictionary, e.g. for the word "beset". I do not consider all mathematics and physics naturally beset (afflicted?) with paradoxes. I rather consider paradoxes typically as hint to something valuable, to more or less basic mistakes to be revealed.

What about the paradoxes of SR, the proponents who are denying them tend to feel safe behind two main arguments

- allegedly compelling experimental evidence, in particular Michelson and FitzGerald/Trouton which turned out wrong expectations

- putative usefulness which reminds me of propaganda by religious and political systems

So far nobody was in position to explain to me how an assumed and maybe also measured common velocity of two jointly moving parts eg of a light ray can be different just because they are seen each by a differently moving observer. Meanwhile I am pretty sure having understood that split thinking. I see Georg Cantor similar to Albert Einstein. Both are immortal idols who stand for earlier mistakes.

Eckard

Edwin Klingman

Dear Eckard,

I do not have time to track this SR conversation and follow the other lines that I am working on, but I do like your last comment about paradoxes and their value and also your remark about those who deny the paradoxes.

There is so much of value on FQXi. I wish that someone could extract and summarize the main arguments in these SR blogs for those of us who have not followed all of the comments. Someone like Daryl Janzen could do a very proper job of this.

Anyway, I'm glad that this SR thread keeps going. Things have been enlightening over on the QM blogs as well. 2012 was an intriguing year, I hope 2013 is even better.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

[deleted]

On the subject of SR, it would be useful if people read what the man himself actually wrote (examples are, yet again, quoted below), then you would all stop chasing this red herring.

In respect of the theory of relativity, again it would be useful if people read what the man himself actually wrote, then you would realise that there is no observational light for an observer to observe with. Just deploying the words observer, frame of reference, and light, does not make it so. The light which Einstein refers to is a conceptual constant used to calibrate duration and distance. In sum: he has shifted the actual timing differential which occurs between time of existence and time of receipt of photon based representation of that, to the other end of the physical process, ie it is deemed to be a characteristic of physical existence.

SR definition

Einstein 1916 section7

"At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later."

Einstein 1916 section 18

"provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion...The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity."

Einstein 1916 section 22

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Einstein 1916 section 28

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference-body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body...In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity."

Einstein 1921 para 11:

"The development of the special theory of relativity consists of two main steps, namely, the adaptation of the space-time "metrics" to Maxwell's electro-dynamics, and an adaptation of the rest of physics to that altered space-time "metrics."

So, special relativity, as defined by Einstein, involves:

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

-only fixed shape bodies at rest

-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

It is not what was written in 1905. It is special because there is no gravitational force, or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred.

[deleted]

Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, combined with the (true) principle of relativity, entails that either observer measures both the other's clock to run slow and the other's rod to be shorter. In many scenarios this is REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence so Divine Albert and his worshippers have introduced additional absurdities in order to explain away the original absurdity. In the bug-rivet scenario the original absurdity is blatant:

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

It seems special relativity is doomed and yet... if length contraction alone produces absurdities, then nothing can stop Einsteinians from ad hoc introducing length elongation: the combination of length contraction and length elongation resolves any paradox, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

John de Pillis: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Paul Reed

Pentcho, do yourself two favours:

1 First find the light which enables an entity designated as an observer to be an observer. There is none.

2 Read 1916 (the point is repeated elsewhere but that will do) and identify what Einstein defined as being SR. Although his resolution as what he saw ad "only apparently incompatible" is wrong, it is better than what the critics are portraying as being his theory.

Paul

[deleted]

Physics problems no matter how complex are just puzzles. The challenge of solving puzzles is that you solve them without breaking fundamental rules. This is often a case of looking at a problem in an original way.

[deleted]

Clever Einsteinians and Special Relativity

The observer is at rest and the chairs of a chairlift pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the chairs. Then the observer starts moving against the chairs with speed v; now the chairs pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

The observer is at rest and water waves pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the wavecrests. Then the observer starts moving against the waves with speed v; now the water waves pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

The observer is at rest and sound waves pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the wavecrests. Then the observer starts moving against the waves with speed v; now the sound waves pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

The observer is at rest and light waves pass him with speed c and frequency f=c/L, where L is the distance between the wavecrests. Then the observer starts moving against the waves with speed v; now the light waves pass him with speed c'=c+v and frequency f'=(c+v)/L.

Einsteinians accept and even teach the above analogy except for the fatal (for special relativity) phrase:

...now the light waves pass him with speed c'=c+v...

Unintelligent Einsteinians explicitly reject the fatal phrase: they just declare that the light waves pass the moving observer with speed c'=c and frequency f'=(c+v)/L, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Clever Einsteinians know that, for any waves, the frequency shift from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L can only be caused by a shift, from c to c'=c+v, in the speed of the waves relative to the observer. Special relativity is doomed and clever Einsteinians don't waste time.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Einsteinians abandon special relativity, the root of all the evil in physics, without abandoning it:

[link:www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257]Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."[/link]

[link:cds.cern.ch/record/388816/files/9905393.pdf]Joao Magueijo: "In VSL [Varying Speed of Light] all observers at the same point, at the same time, but possibly moving relative to each other, see the same c. Again nothing can travel faster than light. However Lorentz symmetry is broken. And once this happens we are in the dark. Lorentz symmetry has been the guiding principle used to set up all new theories in the 20th century. If we discard it, what new guideline can we adopt? We postulate a principle of minimal coupling. This means simply to replace c by a field c(t;x) wherever it occurs in selected laws. Such a minimal coupling principle guided the construction of other "varying constant" theories. It ensures that nothing new happens when the "varying constants" are kept fixed. It also ensures that minimal changes are introduced when "varying constants" do vary. Minimal coupling cannot be consistently applied in all laws. We decided to apply it to the field equations: in the case of gravity, to Einstein's equations. Curvature is not affected by VSL, and the way matter generates curvature is the same as before. In some loose sense we have General Relativity without Special Relativity."[/link]

Why do Einsteinians abandon special relativity, the root of all the evil in physics, without abandoning it? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah.

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

How very clever Einsteinians abandon special relativity, the root of all the evil in physics, without abandoning it:

Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now." Playing with paradoxes is part of a theoretical physicist's vocation, as well as high-class recreation. Let's play with this one. (...) As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6. Right-moving observers, who use up-sloping lines of constant time, similar to the lines of constant t2 in Figure 2, will see b come before both a and c (Figure 5). But c may come either after or before a, depending on how steep the slope is. Similarly, according to left-moving observers (Figure 6), a will always come before b and c, but the order of b and c varies. The bottom line: c never comes first, but other than that all time-orderings are possible. These exercises in special relativity are entertaining in themselves, but there are also serious issues in play. They arise when we combine special relativity with quantum mechanics."

Pentcho Valev

[deleted]

Frank Wilczek: "As we've seen, if a and b are space-like separated, then either can come before the other, according to different moving observers. So it is natural to ask: If a third event, c, is space-like separated with respect to both a and b, can all possible time-orderings, or "chronologies," of a, b, c be achieved? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is No. We can see why in Figures 5 and 6. Right-moving observers, who use up-sloping lines of constant time, similar to the lines of constant t2 in Figure 2, will see b come before both a and c (Figure 5). But c may come either after or before a, depending on how steep the slope is. Similarly, according to left-moving observers (Figure 6), a will always come before b and c, but the order of b and c varies. The bottom line: c never comes first, but other than that all time-orderings are possible. These exercises in special relativity are entertaining in themselves, but there are also serious issues in play. They arise when we combine special relativity with quantum mechanics. Two distinct kinds of difficulties arise as we attempt to combine those two great theories..."

One does not combine "two great theories". Rather, one combines the sane concept of time used in quantum mechanics and the insane concept of time offered by special relativity. The situation is more than schizophrenic so clever Einsteinians leave the sinking ship without any hesitation:

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev

pjackson

Eckard,

I agree. Anomalies and paradoxes are key to solving the puzzle. In philosophy it's accepted no 'systems of logic' avoids ultimate paradox. In maths the same limit is Godels incompleteness theorem and infinities. But yes, many ignore & forget them.

You suggest; "So far nobody was in position to explain to me how an assumed and maybe also measured common velocity of two jointly moving parts e.g. of a light ray can be different just because they are seen each by a differently moving observer."

Spot on! But you have so far missed the explanation of the same RESULTS from a simple mechanism. The fact that the mechanism (DFM) is unfamiliar seems to be the only cause, but I will try yet again in a slightly different way. Consider this;

All light is doing the same speed c, as in a medium

The light that 'MEETS' a lens changes speed to c/n with respect to the lens ON MEETING the lens.

The light that does NOT meet the lens carries on at c with respect to the medium.

Observation is then simply a SAMPLING exercise! And the act of sampling localises the speed to the frame of the sampler.

Now this is consistent with all optical science findings (unlike SR!). Is there any actual good reason why you don't find theory self consistent?

Peter

[deleted]

How Non-Einsteinians Are Converted to Einsteinians

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. The claim that the theory of relativity is logically consistent for reasons that are too complex for non-professionals to grasp is not only convenient, but is rhetorically unassailable - as whenever a critic disproves one argument, the professional physicist can allude to another more abstruse one. Einstein's transformation of the clock paradox from a purported expression of the special theory to a purported expression of the much more complicated general theory is one example of such a defence. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory."

"Teaching Children to Worship Albert Einstein. (...) During the morning, children spent time with their parents. Afternoon brought a special production of Einstein! Einstein! followed by tours of RHIC, ITD, the fire house, Science Museum, and tree planting. (...) Professor Chanteuse led the audience in singing "Divine Einstein" while the scientists changed into their real costumes. (...) Einstein explains that imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! led by volunteers from the audience. Einstein! Einstein! He's our man! If he can't solve it, no one can!"

Bingo The Clowno

Pentcho Valev

« Previous Page Next Page »